Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Invicti vs Seeker comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Invicti
Ranking in API Security
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (14th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)
Seeker
Ranking in API Security
15th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Internet Security (19th), Mobile Threat Defense (14th)
 

Featured Reviews

Amr Abdelnaser - PeerSpot reviewer
A safe solution used to detective vulnerabilities for dynamic and complex testing
The Invicti is the scope application tool. The solution is installed on-premise but could be installed as a web version. Starting from the latest version, the web version could be used. They have a web application server. The deployment of the solution involves installing the EXE and configuring your machine.
San K - PeerSpot reviewer
More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities
One area that Seeker can improve is to make it more customizable. All security scanning tools have a defined set of rules that are based on certain criteria which they will use to detect issues. However, the criteria that you set initially is not something that all applications are going to need. The purposes for which applications are designed may differ in practice in the industry, and because of this, there will always be tools that sometimes report false positives. Thus, there should be some means with which I can customize the way that Seeker learns about our applications, possibly by using some kind of AI / ML capability within the tool that will automatically reduce the number of false positives that we get as we use the tool over time. Obviously, when we first start using the scanning tool there will be false positives, but as it keeps going and as I keep using the tool, there should be a period of time where either the application can learn how to ignore false positives, or I can customize it do so. Adding this type of functionality would definitely prevent future issues when it comes to reporting false positives, and this is a key area that we have already asked the vendor to improve on, in general. On a different note, there is one feature that isn't completely available right now where you can integrate Seeker with an open-source vulnerability scanner or composition analysis tool such as Black Duck. I would very much like this capability to be available to us out-of-the-box, so that we can easily integrate with tools like Black Duck in such a way that any open source components that are used in the front-end are easily identified. I think this would be a huge plus for Seeker. Another feature within Seeker which could benefit from improvement is active verification, which lets you actively verify a vulnerability. This feature currently doesn't work in certain applications, particularly in scenarios where you have requested tokens. When we bought the tool, we didn't realize this and we were not told about it by the vendor, so initially it was a big challenge for us to overcome it and properly begin our deployment.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The platform is stable."
"This tool is really fast and the information that they provide on vulnerabilities is pretty good."
"Scan, proxify the application, and then detailed report along with evidence and remediations to problems."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
"It correctly parses DOM and JS and has really good support for URL Rewrite rules, which is important for today's websites."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."
"When we try to manually exploit the vulnerabilities, it often takes time to realize what's going on and what needs to be done."
"A significant advantage of Seeker is that it is an interactive scanner, and we have found it to be much more effective in reducing the amount of false positives than dynamic scanners such as AppScan, Micro Focus Fortify, etc. Furthermore, with Seeker, we are finding more and more valid (i.e. "true") positives over time compared with the dynamic scanners."
 

Cons

"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."
"The scannings are not sufficiently updated."
"Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve."
"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."
"Invicti takes too long with big applications, and there are issues with the login portal."
"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"The custom attack preparation screen might be improved."
"One area that Seeker can improve is to make it more customizable. All security scanning tools have a defined set of rules that are based on certain criteria which they will use to detect issues. However, the criteria that you set initially is not something that all applications are going to need."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We are using an NFR license and I do not know the exact price of the NFR license. I think 20 FQDN for three years would cost around 35,000 US Dollars."
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"It is competitive in the security market."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"The solution is very expensive. It comes with a yearly subscription. We were paying 6000 dollars yearly for unlimited scans. We have three licenses; basic, business, and ultimate. We need ultimate because it has unlimited scan numbers."
"Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"The licensing for Seeker is user-based and for 50 users I believe it costs about $70,000 per year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Security solutions are best for your needs.
823,875 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
55%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner?
As a technical user, I do not handle pricing or licensing, but I am aware that Invicti offers flexible licensing models based on organizational needs.
What do you like most about Invicti?
The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan.
What needs improvement with Invicti?
Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Netsparker
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
El Al Airlines and Société Française du Radiotelephone
Find out what your peers are saying about Akamai, Checkmarx, Salt Security and others in API Security. Updated: December 2024.
823,875 professionals have used our research since 2012.